>>75"The safety of C" is something you guys have been bringing up. You're the ones making a fanatic deal about it. Not me. I'm just saying it isn't as "unsafe" (or "safe"). I think however it is perfectly fine in this regard. I acknowledge there is vulnerable C code (so what?). I can not currently think of one attack vector against C programs that is thoroughly to attribute to the language design of C. While there are some (always exaggerated) examples of obviously unsafe utilizations of C most critical vulnerabilities in computing also has ties to OS design and implementation, architectural design and conventions, et cetera. Any serious programmer realizes this.
And I find this discussion pathetic. It's not a retreat when I simply don't want to spend too much time arguing over this.
Anyway I was just here to refer to bring in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-06/msg03267.html